War on Iran? - Xtratime Community
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 181 (permalink) Old August 15th, 2005, 11:49 Thread Starter
Rising Star
 
Pa la saca's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07 2005
Location: MADRID
Teams: REAL MADRID
Posts: 285
War on Iran?

Some days ago George W. Bush declared that he doesn't "discard any way to prevent/avoid a nuclear menace from Iran".

But there's no evidence of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

This reminds the precendent of Iraq, when he accused Iraq of being a menace for the USA security.

Next, the German PM Gerhard Schroeder required Bush "to stop since has been noticed the failure of these politics".

-Do you see possible a near war on Iran? If yes, do you think it will be easier or harder than Iraq?

-Do you think Iran is developing MDW?

-What side do you agree most: Attack Iran because they are a menace, or in order to instaure a democracy following the neoconservative programme?

-In case of war, how will react the International Community?

-A war on Iran, would be profitable, or an error?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Future Spanish NT coach, Rafa Benítez
Perfecto. Tras este desastre seguro que entraremos en la historia. Podéis jugar para encajar seis o siete goles más y ser el hazmerreír del mundo o podéis intentar marcar en los primeros quince minutos y soñar con ganar el título.
Pa la saca is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 181 (permalink) Old August 15th, 2005, 11:58
World Class Player
 
Join Date: 08 2003
Posts: 8,152
Good question I made a thread on this topic not too long ago, well they need a reason, something, whether its a pearl habour type event or Isreal starting on Iran for whatever reason with Amercia coming to 'back them up' or whatever, they need a reason and they will probably f*ck Iran from the air more than they did with Iraq since a ground invasion would be way harder than it was with their neighbour.

Anyway we just have to wait for that reason, when they get one there will be protest but they ignored the people before and will do again.
Phil Neville is offline  
post #3 of 181 (permalink) Old August 15th, 2005, 12:16 Thread Starter
Rising Star
 
Pa la saca's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07 2005
Location: MADRID
Teams: REAL MADRID
Posts: 285
Sorry I didn't see your thread, Faisal.

IMO, Bush will declare war on Iran, but he will wait until 2007 or 2008. He expects the things more calmed down on Iraq, so he can begin another war. In addition, his idea would be not to be a candidate in 2008 elections so he would start the war on Iran and dropping off the next PM with the "hot potatoe".

He can bomb whatever he wants from air, but the only way to dismantle the teocracy is by the entry of troops in Teheran, which is a harder purpose than overrunning Iraq.

Answering my own questions, I don't see Iran developing MDW; that answers the following question; if he encroaches Iran is in order to create a democratic system. Again, the IC would blame everything for that, without results; and that war would not be profitable on any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Future Spanish NT coach, Rafa Benítez
Perfecto. Tras este desastre seguro que entraremos en la historia. Podéis jugar para encajar seis o siete goles más y ser el hazmerreír del mundo o podéis intentar marcar en los primeros quince minutos y soñar con ganar el título.
Pa la saca is offline  
 
post #4 of 181 (permalink) Old August 15th, 2005, 23:08
International
 
Stecino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 2004
Location: Los Armenios
Teams: Juventus, Forza Azzuri
Posts: 6,394
Not another war. I'm sick of seeing my taxes going into beaurocartic hands. Spent for war, never!!!

I think Bush should clean up his own backyard, instead of sticking his nose into other's business. The bottom line is, other countries feel if they want to have even a gram of weight in the world they need to have nuclear weaponary. Which makes sence, since US is pushing everyone around the way they want, and they don't want to be pushed around.

Hayeri dem xax chka!!!
Stecino is offline  
post #5 of 181 (permalink) Old August 15th, 2005, 23:12
Mourinho & Cassano!!
Xtratime Legend
 
G. Facchetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10 2003
Location: Angelo Moratti Sports Centre
Teams: FC Internazionale Milano, FC Rangers
Posts: 45,797
In my opinion, Bush would not go to war right now since the American people are starting to turn on him on the Iraq issue. My opinion is this- I think Bush is desperately trying to solve Iraq and get out of there ASAP. He wants to concentrate on Afghanistan once more, and he specifically wants to capture Bin Laden or his body, as a trophy to the American people. His aim with that is ratings, and then he will initiate the Iran war. But based on how the reports said he planned for Iraq years ahead, I'm sure a war plan is already in place, CIA operatives are already there, etc.

WE WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER GIACINTO FACCHETTI, LEGEND OF THE INTERNAZIONALE AND ITALIAN GAME
G. Facchetti is offline  
post #6 of 181 (permalink) Old August 15th, 2005, 23:20
Xtratime Legend
Xtratime Legend
 
AMOROSO!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 06 1999
Location: London
Teams: PAOK and Parma
Posts: 26,731
I don't see why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
AMOROSO! is offline  
post #7 of 181 (permalink) Old August 15th, 2005, 23:37
gOD
***** *******
Legend
 
gOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12 1999
Location: Hippotopia
Teams: RSC Anderlecht
Posts: 14,672
Iran getting nuclear arms would be a real problem. Not because they will attack the US, Israel or any other country. They won't, their regime might be totalitarian, it is not suicidal. The Ayatollahs (who act as rational as one can imagine) first of all care about the Ayatollahs and they know very well that a nuclear attack would turn out to be very unhealthy for them.
The real problem would be that Iran's nuclear break-out would mean the end of the IAEA. As much as the hawks in the current US administration hate to admit it, such international organisations, as impowerful as they may look (an dto a large extend are), are the only realistic dam we have against nuclear proliferation.

Still an attack on Iran would be a disaster (except for the fact that every war is wrong of course). First of all because just like in Iraq, foreign troops will be seen as opponents not as liberators. Nobody is waiting for 'freedoim and democracy' if it comes with the total destruction of a country. Since Iran is a lot stronger military wise, it would turn out in drama.
For the West it would be a drama too. You'd have a failed state from Iraq (which wasn't the case under Sadam) to Afghanistan (and if you're realistic add Pakistan to that). An entire uncontrolled area were terrorist networks as Al Qaeda can rebuild or develop itself.
But also on a geo-political scale a war against Iran would be disastrous. Unlike Iraq, you can't isolate Iran since it is already one of the biggest suppliers of oil to China. It worked with Russia, because they are weak, but there is simply no way that rising oil-craving superpower will stand sidelined to see how the US will get 'their' backyard under control.

We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace!

26.000 Faces :frownani:
gOD is offline  
post #8 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 00:45
Forum Manager
Legend
 
Nero's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 2000
Teams: F.C. Juventus of Turin
Posts: 17,460
The only country ever to have used a nuclear bomb and are currently capriciously threatening other nations which seek to develop nuclear technology, the United States, withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty without facing any sanctions, to pursuit its "son of star wars" missile defence system. Israel, which is not a member of the treaty as well, has a well-known stockpile of nuclear missiles, and is unaccountable to anyone at all for them.
Iran, which is a member of the NPT, has no nuclear weapons at all, and is being prevented and condemned worldwide for seeking to simply enrich Uranium and develop nuclear power plants.

And you know what's the funniest (not haha funny) thing is? If the U.S wanted to get a resolution passed in the U.N to authorize the use of force against Iran, they would get it.

And there are people who are baffled by why so many disdain the west.

“Dogs celebrate on the corpses of lions, thinking they’ve won, but lions remain lions and dogs stay dogs"
-Stefano Sturaro
Nero is offline  
post #9 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 00:55
Xtratime Legend
 
Join Date: 06 1999
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 22,168
I completely agree with you from a moral point of view, Nero.

On the other hand I need to say that there's no real need for Iran to have uranium enrichment capabilities if all they wanted was nuclear powerplants. They could have the needed technology without this facet, and of course they want the bomb.

If I was Iran, so would I.

But from the hypocritical side of things, I would sure prefer if Teheran didn't have one/tried to develop one. Both because of the new influence the Mullahs could exert (and I think we see some rather awful signs of what that can be in Iraq today), and because of the potential actions of the US and Israel side.

APATHY: A word now fallen into disuse due to a lack of concern for it.

The debute said it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guo5p...eature=related
Glen is offline  
post #10 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:00
Ne oprastam
Legend
 
milos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08 2005
Location: Stoney Creek
Teams: Serbia,Red Star
Posts: 12,643
if the US can have nuclear weapons why cant other countries?
milos is offline  
post #11 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:11
Legend
 
Haroon's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2003
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Teams: Milan | Italia
Posts: 11,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by gOD
For the West it would be a drama too. You'd have a failed state from Iraq (which wasn't the case under Sadam) to Afghanistan (and if you're realistic add Pakistan to that). An entire uncontrolled area were terrorist networks as Al Qaeda can rebuild or develop itself.
What's a "failed state"? Ever heard of e-Qaida? The most uncontrolled area where terrorist networks such as Al-Qaida can rebuild or develop themselves is the information highway. That is where these cvnts learn how to become MacGyver and then they seek to become glorified war-heroes when in reality they are pathetic chicken shits of the highest order.

___________________

ACM 1899
___________________
Haroon is offline  
post #12 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:13
BANNED!
Star Player
 
Attila_the_Nun's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2003
Posts: 3,469
The war with Iran is due to start exactly two weeks after Hell freezes over, one month after the cows come home, and the year after Luton Town overtake Real Madrid's CL total.

What's the next thread in this series? Elvis to sing duet with Hitler?
Attila_the_Nun is offline  
post #13 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:14
Master Debater
Xtratime Legend
 
yeniceri's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06 2004
Posts: 20,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by milos
if the US can have nuclear weapons why cant other countries?

Because having a Nuke is power, once a country has a nuke it is difficult to push them around on political and economic issues. This really isn't as simple as we have it they should, the world doesn't work that way.
Throughout human history stronger nations have tried to keep others weak in order to dominate the world. This will NEVER change.
yeniceri is offline  
post #14 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:14
Forum Manager
Legend
 
Nero's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 2000
Teams: F.C. Juventus of Turin
Posts: 17,460
I'm by no means an expert on the field of nuclear fission and the process of nuclear power generation, but from what i know enriched uranium is a necessary component of nuclear energy and ensures maxmium efficiency.

Now, one can argue based on the different enrichment grades, that Iran wouldn't need higher than normal concentrations of uranium to produce nuclear power, but i don't see how you can say having uranium enrichment facilities per se, are indicative of Iran seeking the bomb.

“Dogs celebrate on the corpses of lions, thinking they’ve won, but lions remain lions and dogs stay dogs"
-Stefano Sturaro
Nero is offline  
post #15 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:23
Forum Manager
Legend
 
Nero's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 2000
Teams: F.C. Juventus of Turin
Posts: 17,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by gOD
Iran getting nuclear arms would be a real problem. Not because they will attack the US, Israel or any other country. They won't, their regime might be totalitarian, it is not suicidal. The Ayatollahs (who act as rational as one can imagine) first of all care about the Ayatollahs and they know very well that a nuclear attack would turn out to be very unhealthy for them.
How can you categorize Iran as a totalitarian regime, when they've just voted in a new president after democratic elections?

Iranian democracy may not be perfect, but it's still head and shoulders over any other country in the region and its election mechanism and elected represtatives in the Iranian government constitutes enough on their own merits, not to be stigmatized and dismissed as totalitarian.

“Dogs celebrate on the corpses of lions, thinking they’ve won, but lions remain lions and dogs stay dogs"
-Stefano Sturaro

Last edited by Nero; August 16th, 2005 at 01:28.
Nero is offline  
post #16 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:27
gOD
***** *******
Legend
 
gOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12 1999
Location: Hippotopia
Teams: RSC Anderlecht
Posts: 14,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haroon
What's a "failed state"? Ever heard of e-Qaida? The most uncontrolled area where terrorist networks such as Al-Qaida can rebuild or develop themselves is the information highway. That is where these cvnts learn how to become MacGyver and then they seek to become glorified war-heroes when in reality they are pathetic chicken shits of the highest order.
You're definitely right that the internet is a really important tool in their hands, but on a higher level the influence of failed states can hardly be overestimated.

In essence failed states are countries where the (central) governement is soo weak that it hasn't got control over what happens on its territory. On one side it goes hand in hand with poverty, violence,... anything that makes the people tend to extremism. On a more important note it gives the freedom to terrrist networks to organise and (re)build itself e.g. through training camps.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=3098

We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace!

26.000 Faces :frownani:
gOD is offline  
post #17 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:29
totally innocent
Premier Player
 
HiJazzey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10 2001
Location: The south, the deep south
Teams: Ittihad
Posts: 2,227
It depends on the type of reactor. Canadian reactors (CANDU) run on un-enriched uranium.

Obituary


Saudi Arabian football 1957-2006


HiJazzey is offline  
post #18 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:33
gOD
***** *******
Legend
 
gOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12 1999
Location: Hippotopia
Teams: RSC Anderlecht
Posts: 14,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nero
How can you categorize Iran as a totalitarian regime, when they've just voted in a new president after democratic elections?

Iranian democracy may not be perfect, but it's still head and shoulders over any other country in the region and its election mechanism and elected represtatives in the Iranian government constitutes enough on their own merits, not to be stigmatized and dismissed as totalitarian.
You're right, my apologies. Totalitarian isn't the right word :embarass:. On the other hand, you can't call it a free or open society either. :undecide:

We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace!

26.000 Faces :frownani:
gOD is offline  
post #19 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:40
Forum Manager
Legend
 
Nero's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 2000
Teams: F.C. Juventus of Turin
Posts: 17,460
Yeah, but CANDU reactors require heavy water in their production of nuclear energy.

Heavy water production reactors can be designed to turn uranium into bomb-usable plutonium without requiring enrichment facilities.

So either way can lead to nuclear weapons. Besides, I doubt Iran has CANDU reactors...

“Dogs celebrate on the corpses of lions, thinking they’ve won, but lions remain lions and dogs stay dogs"
-Stefano Sturaro
Nero is offline  
post #20 of 181 (permalink) Old August 16th, 2005, 01:48
Master Debater
Xtratime Legend
 
yeniceri's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06 2004
Posts: 20,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa la saca
-Do you see possible a near war on Iran? If yes, do you think it will be easier or harder than Iraq?
No I do not see a possible war with Iran. Not to downplay the fact Iran was an original target for attack in America reshaping the region according to its interests. Since the invasion of Iraq has shown the limits of its power, the U.S. going into Iran is not likely. Iran and Syria were, for sure, on the list. A ( subdued ) Iraq was going to be used as a staging point. America is now so bogged down in Iraq that it isn't even considering an attack on a smaller Syria, so again Iran is out of the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa la saca
-Do you think Iran is developing MDW?
Yes I do believe Iran is attempting to aquire nuclear weapons. The biggest winner in the Iraqi war has been Iran. The only country who would stomp out Iran's nuclear ambitions was the United States. The same United States that now has its troops overstretched around the world and commited in a fight in Iraq that it cannot win. Iran is sitting pretty right on the boarder of Iraq, using their close ties with a(majority) shiite brethern to wield influence over the future of Iraq. Iran has had delusions of becomming a strong regional power for some time now and this gave them an opening to develope nukes. Nukes would for sure turn Iran into a major regional power overnight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa la saca
-What side do you agree most: Attack Iran because they are a menace, or in order to instaure a democracy following the neoconservative programme?
The sides in this conflict of opinion are not clear enough to actually take a side but as far as a pre-emptive strike I am in dissagreement. The best way to subdue Iran is through economic sanctions and by using caldestine operations to support the reformers within Iran. ( And trust me there are plenty )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa la saca
-In case of war, how will react the International Community?
The only possible way America ( considering its current situation ) will attack Iran is if Iran were to become aggressive to a point of either attacking America in Iraq or attacking some of America's vital national interests. If this is what leads to war I think the international community in large will back the war against Iran more so than it did with Iraq. An aggressive Iran is against the interests of all the major powers except Russia and China. Russia and China will make some noise at the United Nations but will eventually yield as it would not wish to politically confront a USA, England, France and a German ( United )front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa la saca
-A war on Iran, would be profitable, or an error?
A war on Iran will be a castastrophy for all countries involved in the operation. Iran is no Iraq. Iraq is a makeshift country where the people don't identify themselves as Iraqies. America did not have to deal with a patriotic, honor saving, all out united insurgency throughout the country. Invading Iraq also had other advantages over invading Iran because America could divide the respective ethnic divisions against each other making our occupation easier. With all these factors in favor for it, America was still not able to successfuly occupy Iraq. So imagine invading a country like Iran which is a larger and has a huge population of Persians who would be UNITED in the fight against the occupying powers.

I truly do not believe occupying a country with Irans particularities in this day and age is possible. Even the Hyperpower ( USA ) does not have the ability to do so. If the United States were to Invade Iran with the Aim of occupation as it did with Iraq, it is my honest opinion that this would lead to a chain of events that would strip the United States of its hyperpower status. They can't afford it militarily, politically or
economically.

So unless Iran does something REALLY STUPID, there is no need for anybody to worry about all out war with Iran. The odds of you getting struck by lightening are higher.

Just my two cents.
yeniceri is offline  
 

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Xtratime Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive. Try to avoid choosing short (like '1'), simple (like 'abcd') and easy to guess passwords (like a name of your favorite team, player, etc)! Complex and long enough passwords, that consists of random string of alphabet and numerical characters, are almost impossible to be stolen and misused.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome